Community-directed interventions for informing and/or educating about early childhood vaccination

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Immunisation plays a major role in reducing childhood morbidity and mortality. Getting children immunised against potentially fatal and debilitating vaccine-preventable diseases remains a challenge despite the availability of efficacious vaccines, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. With the introduction of new vaccines, this becomes increasingly difficult. There is therefore a current need to synthesise the available evidence on the strategies used to bridge this gap. This is a second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016, and it focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost demand and supply of childhood vaccines, and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus (11 July 2022). We searched Embase, LILACS, and Sociological Abstracts (2 September 2014). We searched WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 July 2022). In addition, we screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews for potentially eligible studies, and carried out a citation search for 14 of the included studies (19 February 2020).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised RCTs (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in low- and middle-income countries involving children that were under five years of age, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies involving 100,747 participants are included in the review. Twenty studies were cluster-randomised and 15 studies were individually randomised controlled trials. Six studies were quasi-randomised. The studies were conducted in four upper-middle-income countries (China, Georgia, Mexico, Guatemala), 11 lower-middle-income countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Zimbabwe), and three lower-income countries (Afghanistan, Mali, Rwanda). The interventions evaluated in the studies were health education (seven studies), patient reminders (13 studies), digital register (two studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (two studies), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (two studies), integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study), payment for performance (two studies), engagement of community leaders (one study), training on interpersonal communication skills (one study), and logistic support to health facilities (one study). We judged nine of the included studies to have low risk of bias; the risk of bias in eight studies was unclear and 24 studies had high risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that health education (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.62; 6 studies, 4375 participants) and home-based records (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; 3 studies, 4019 participants) may improve coverage with DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine. Phone calls/short messages may have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; 6 studies, 3869 participants; low-certainty evidence); wearable reminders probably have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 uptake (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; 2 studies, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of community leaders in combination with provider intervention probably increases the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.69; 1 study, 2020 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of immunisation outreach on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake in children under two years of age (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.56; 1 study, 541 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain about the following interventions improving full vaccination of children under two years of age: training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills (RR 5.65, 95% CI 3.62 to 8.83; 1 study, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and home visits (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45; 1 study, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same applies to the effect of training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills on the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 by one year of age (very low-certainty evidence). The integration of immunisation with other services may, however, improve full vaccination (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44; 1 study, 1700 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Health education, home-based records, a combination of involvement of community leaders with health provider intervention, and integration of immunisation services may improve vaccine uptake. The certainty of the evidence for the included interventions ranged from moderate to very low. Low certainty of the evidence implies that the true effect of the interventions might be markedly different from the estimated effect. Further, more rigorous RCTs are, therefore, required to generate high-certainty evidence to inform policy and practice.

Improving vaccination uptake among adolescents

BACKGROUND

Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond childhood. In recent years, many programmes have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescent populations; however, vaccination coverage among adolescents remains suboptimal. Therefore, understanding and evaluating the various interventions that can be used to improve adolescent vaccination is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interventions to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2018, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and eight other databases. In addition, we searched two clinical trials platforms, electronic databases of grey literature, and reference lists of relevant articles. For related systematic reviews, we searched four databases. Furthermore, in May 2019, we performed a citation search of five other websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies of adolescents (girls or boys aged 10 to 19 years) eligible for World Health Organization-recommended vaccines and their parents or healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened records, reviewed full-text articles to identify potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. For each included study, we calculated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We pooled study results using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (eight individually randomised trials, four cluster randomised trials, three non-randomised trials, and one controlled before-after study). Twelve studies were conducted in the USA, while there was one study each from: Australia, Sweden, Tanzania, and the UK. Ten studies had unclear or high risk of bias. We categorised interventions as recipient-oriented, provider-oriented, or health systems-oriented. The interventions targeted adolescent boys or girls or both (seven studies), parents (four studies), and providers (two studies). Five studies had mixed participants that included adolescents and parents, adolescents and healthcare providers, and parents and healthcare providers. The outcomes included uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) (11 studies); hepatitis B (three studies); and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal, HPV, and influenza (three studies) vaccines among adolescents. Health education improves HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). In addition, one large study provided evidence that a complex multi-component health education intervention probably results in little to no difference in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to simplified information leaflets on the vaccine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; 17,411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Financial incentives may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.99; 1 study, 500 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether combining health education and financial incentives has an effect on hepatitis B vaccine uptake, compared to usual practice (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.00; 1 study, 104 participants; very low certainty evidence). Mandatory vaccination probably leads to a large increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 3.92, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.20; 1 study, 6462 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Provider prompts probably make little or no difference compared to usual practice, on completion of Tdap (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.80; 2 studies, 3296 participants), meningococcal (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; 2 studies, 3219 participants), HPV (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.81; 2 studies, 859 participants), and influenza (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 2 studies, 1439 participants) vaccination schedules (moderate-certainty evidence). Provider education with performance feedback may increase the proportion of adolescents who are offered and accept HPV vaccination by clinicians, compared to usual practice. Compared to adolescents visiting non-participating clinicians (in the usual practice group), the adolescents visiting clinicians in the intervention group were more likely to receive the first dose of HPV during preventive visits (5.7 percentage points increase) and during acute visits (0.7 percentage points for the first and 5.6 percentage points for the second doses of HPV) (227 clinicians and more than 200,000 children; low-certainty evidence). A class-based school vaccination strategy probably leads to slightly higher HPV vaccine uptake than an age-based school vaccination strategy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13; 1 study, 5537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component provider intervention (including an education session, repeated contacts, individualised feedback, and incentives) probably improves uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice (moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component intervention targeting providers and parents involving social marketing and health education may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.59; 1 study, 25,869 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Various strategies have been evaluated to improve adolescent vaccination including health education, financial incentives, mandatory vaccination, and class-based school vaccine delivery. However, most of the evidence is of low to moderate certainty. This implies that while this research provides some indication of the likely effect of these interventions, the likelihood that the effects will be substantially different is high. Therefore, additional research is needed to further enhance adolescent immunisation strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are limited adolescent vaccination programmes. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors that influence hesitancy, acceptance, and demand for adolescent vaccination in different settings. This is the topic of an ongoing Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, which may help to explain why and how some interventions were more effective than others in increasing adolescent HPV vaccination coverage.

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Immunisation is a powerful public health strategy for improving child survival, not only by directly combating key diseases that kill children but also by providing a platform for other health services. However, each year millions of children worldwide, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), do not receive the full series of vaccines on their national routine immunisation schedule. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2011 and focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 12 May 2016); MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 12 May 2016); CINAHL 1981 to present, EbscoHost (searched 12 May 2016); Embase 1980 to 2014 Week 34, OvidSP (searched 2 September 2014); LILACS, VHL (searched 2 September 2014); Sociological Abstracts 1952 - current, ProQuest (searched 2 September 2014). We did a citation search for all included studies in Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1975 to present; Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 2 July 2016). We also searched the two Trials Registries: ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 5 July 2016) SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in LMICs involving children aged from birth to four years, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We then conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies (10 cluster RCTs and four individual RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Georgia (one study), Ghana (one study), Honduras (one study), India (two studies), Mali (one study), Mexico (one study), Nicaragua (one study), Nepal (one study), Pakistan (four studies), and Zimbabwe (one study). One study had an unclear risk of bias, and 13 had high risk of bias. The interventions evaluated in the studies included community-based health education (three studies), facility-based health education (three studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (one study), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (one study), information campaigns (one study), and integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study).We found moderate-certainty evidence that health education at village meetings or at home probably improves coverage with three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP3: risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.59). We also found low-certainty evidence that facility-based health education plus redesigned vaccination reminder cards may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87). Household monetary incentives may have little or no effect on full immunisation coverage (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, low-certainty evidence). Regular immunisation outreach may improve full immunisation coverage (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.67, low-certainty evidence) which may substantially improve if combined with household incentives (RR 6.66, 95% CI 3.93 to 11.28, low-certainty evidence). Home visits to identify non-vaccinated children and refer them to health clinics may improve uptake of three doses of oral polio vaccine (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39, low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that integration of immunisation with other services may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.59).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing parents and other community members with information on immunisation, health education at facilities in combination with redesigned immunisation reminder cards, regular immunisation outreach with and without household incentives, home visits, and integration of immunisation with other services may improve childhood immunisation coverage in LMIC. Most of the evidence was of low certainty, which implies a high likelihood that the true effect of the interventions will be substantially different. There is thus a need for further well-conducted RCTs to assess the effects of interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

Interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

A range of strategies are used to communicate with parents, caregivers and communities regarding child vaccination in order to inform decisions and improve vaccination uptake. These strategies include interventions in which information is aimed at larger groups in the community, for instance at public meetings, through radio or through leaflets. This is one of two reviews on communication interventions for childhood vaccination. The companion review focuses on face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate people about vaccination in children six years and younger.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and five other databases up to July 2012. We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey. We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language, date or settings restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Individual or cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies. We included interventions aimed at communities and intended to inform and/or educate about vaccination in children six years and younger, conducted in any setting. We defined interventions aimed at communities as those directed at a geographic area, and/or interventions directed to groups of people who share at least one common social or cultural characteristic. Primary outcomes were: knowledge among participants of vaccines or vaccine-preventable diseases and of vaccine service delivery; child immunisation status; and unintended adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: participants' attitudes towards vaccination; involvement in decision-making regarding vaccination; confidence in the decision made; and resource use or cost of intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed the references to identify studies for inclusion. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias in all included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two cluster-randomised trials that compared interventions aimed at communities to routine immunisation practices. In one study from India, families, teachers, children and village leaders were encouraged to attend information meetings where they received information about childhood vaccination and could ask questions. In the second study from Pakistan, people who were considered to be trusted in the community were invited to meetings to discuss vaccine coverage rates in their community and the costs and benefits of childhood vaccination. They were asked to develop local action plans and to share the information they had been given and continue the discussions in their communities.The trials show low certainty evidence that interventions aimed at communities to inform and educate about childhood vaccination may improve knowledge of vaccines or vaccine-preventable diseases among intervention participants (adjusted mean difference 0.121, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.055 to 0.189). These interventions probably increase the number of children who are vaccinated. The study from India showed that the intervention probably increased the number of children who received vaccinations (risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.31; moderate certainty evidence). The study from Pakistan showed that there is probably an increase in the uptake of both measles (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.58) and DPT (diptheria, pertussis and tetanus) (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.29) vaccines (both moderate certainty evidence), but there may be little or no difference in the number of children who received polio vaccine (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05; low certainty evidence). There is also low certainty evidence that these interventions may change attitudes in favour of vaccination among parents with young children (adjusted mean difference 0.054, 95% CI 0.013 to 0.105), but they may make little or no difference to the involvement of mothers in decision-making regarding childhood vaccination (adjusted mean difference 0.043, 95% CI -0.009 to 0.097).The studies did not assess knowledge among participants of vaccine service delivery; participant confidence in the vaccination decision; intervention costs; or any unintended harms as a consequence of the intervention. We did not identify any studies that compared interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate with interventions directed to individual parents or caregivers, or studies that compared two interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about childhood vaccination.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides limited evidence that interventions aimed at communities to inform and educate about early childhood vaccination may improve attitudes towards vaccination and probably increase vaccination uptake under some circumstances. However, some of these interventions may be resource intensive when implemented on a large scale and further rigorous evaluations are needed. These interventions may achieve most benefit when targeted to areas or groups that have low childhood vaccination rates.'

Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: leading the field on health communication evidence

This paper presents an overview of the history and achievements of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, part of the international Cochrane Collaboration. It surveys the Group's establishment and structure, the scope of its Cochrane Reviews and the growth in its publication output over its 16-year history. The paper examines the Group's developmental work in interventions and outcomes related to patient communication and involvement, as well as methodological resources for review authors. It also outlines the Review Group's research partnerships with state, national and international agencies, particularly in the areas of chronic disease management, medicines use, public involvement, and vaccines communication. The Group's strong contribution to an evidence-base for health communication and participation are acknowledged.

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.